He missed the core point that the freedom to protest is important in and of itself. Whether you agree with the topic being protested or not, we should all support our right to protest in a peaceful way without fear of a disproportionate response by law enforcement.
I can say that I am never more proud of our police forces than when I see them maintain their control and treat people with respect in the face of provocation. That ability to say in command of oneself even when provoked is a core part of maturity and something to be lauded. As he said, it's a sign of a professional.
The role of the police is to prevent violence. That's what makes a community safe. It sounds like the letter-writer, on the other hand, is looking for an agent of his or her frustration. Someone to lash out at the protestors because he or she legally can't. A community where the police can attack people with impunity is about as far from safe as one can get. It seems somewhat obvious, but a safe community is one where no one is attacking anyone.
If I had the power to change only one thing this year, it would be toward the prohibition of active incitement by police, to include:
- the tactic of first-move provocation, e.g., manhandling and other physical intimidation during routine encounters
- the playing of provocateurs during public demonstration
- shows of force and the deployment of light weapons and armored vehicles
I've tried making this point before, but you've made it in a way I've always failed to. When police approach a situation fulfilling the role of the individual ready to respond to an incident, it almost seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Yes. I've seen this happen myself. In college, after some sportsball event, everybody poured out into the streets, milling around, chatting, celebrating. As soon as the police started to try to make everybody go home, suddenly there was a focus. They created an oppositional dynamic all by themselves, and from there it escalated.
The next day, the papers were of course full of reports of badly behaved crowds and near-rioting stopped only by dedicated law enforcement officers. That's definitely not what I saw.
This has been covered and mentioned way before me, but there are in fact tactics and techniques that can (and should) be used to attempt to de-escalate situations before they get to the point of active rioting.
Specifically, the Army (I believe), and I'm sure other branches of the armed forces, have training manuals on how to interact with people in ways to keep both parties (the would-be combatants/rioters AND other military personnel) from boiling over. This is the sort of this that is incredibly useful, a necessity even, when you're in an active war zone. There's a direct translation over to civilian life, though. At the end of the day, you're trying to keep the peace.
Does it always work? I don't know: I'm not military personnel, nor a LEO, and I haven't looked at all of the available data. As a person who isn't comfortable with the amount of force that local law enforcement in America shows to all people, innocent or guilty, I can tell you 100% that I would personally feel better if I never saw officers show up in armored vehicles.. ever. They're not trained for it, they shouldn't have it.
Perhaps more thought should be given to the idea that showing up in full riot gear before anything violent has occurred is itself viewed by some protesters as incitement. It can become a self-fulfilling prophecy in the wrong situations.
Presumably the police would maintain a minimal, unobtrusive monitoring presence and only gear up/deploy if violence began. This might delay response during a violent protest, but, in theory, would make a peaceful protest safer and might prevent it from turning violent. I don't know what to think about the proposal but it's not completely ridiculous.
> [...] when exactly should the police gear up to disperse a crowd? While it's actively rioting?
I already pay taxes, do I have to give the government solutions to all problems in society in a silver platter too? Why don't they use some of that money to research an answer to that very question? Because guns.
I mean, there could be a foam that slows people down when sprayed. Or a net that makes it confusing to walk. Who knows. So many possibilities. But guns!
> He missed the core point that the freedom to protest is important in and of itself.
I agree wholeheartedly. Also, I was a bit surprised that he didn't refute the claim that you need a permit to peacefully assemble in the US. Is that really so?
Where I am (Sweden) you can "apply for a permit weeks and months in advance", but you don't have to. There's nothing illegal about the peaceful assembly of a large number of people, in fact it's a right ensured by "basic law" (similar to a constitution).
It is similar in the USA (the basic right to peaceful protest is guaranteed by the Constitution), but it is not explicit about the details.
So various localities have tried to interpret that as meaning 'you have the right to do it if you do X, Y or Z' (such as obtaining a permit in advance, or not being too loud too early in the morning, or not blocking traffic, etc etc etc).
In general, you do not need a permit in the USA to hold a protest or demonstration. But in practice, in many cases police will interfere if they want to, leaving it up to courts to decide (much later) if the police actions were permissible under the law. Having a permit in advance will make such police actions less likely.
I tried applying for one of these permits on the largest stage in the US -- NYC -- on several occasions. The Parks Dept, which issues such permits, is a nightmare to deal with: they charge per application, require multiple applications merely to check different dates, and regularly lie about the availability of parks.
You might think spontaneous assembly is an option, and in some cases it is, but if you're going to have speakers (people), you need a sound system, and to set up a sound system you need a police permit, and to get a police permit you need a Parks permit. Start setting up without these and you'll be arrested before anyone utters a word.
Then there are the various "public-private spaces". Try applying for a permit to rally in Zuccotti Park and the go-to person will put you on hold, only to come back and say they are only issuing permits for cultural events. So the developers get their air rights, while the public gets the muzzle. Bullshit. Anil Dash has written about this some: http://dashes.com/anil/2012/03/captive-atria-and-living-in-p...
Indeed, the very frequency with which the Farmers' Market is now held in Union Square, the most central spot in NYC and a place rich in social movements, might be construed as little more than cover for crowd control, have as it does the effect of making this space all but inaccessible to protesters.
the very frequency with which the Farmers' Market is now held in Union Square... might be construed as little more than cover for crowd control, have as it does the effect of making this space all but inaccessible to protesters.
Not saying your argument is unfounded, but may be overstated. I do most of my grocery shopping at union square, and there seems to be a protest there about 30% of the time. I'm sure some people get turned down, but it is clearly accessible to protesters often enough that there are basically permanent police barriers there.
Yes, but how many of these are rallies (with people speaking)? Even though the south end of the square is usually free, including on market days, Parks will tell you that they do not issue permits when the farmers are in the other parts of the square. Ask them why they issued one to, say, March Against Monsanto, and they'll say that event was "grandfathered in" (ie, has been happening for several years). (And ask MAM and they'll tell you it was a huge hassle for them as well.)
Much of what you describe may be unconstitutional. If you can substantiate these claims, and want to make a difference, I strongly urge you to find a lawyer. If you're serious, feel free to email me and we can talk more.
It certainly isn't explicit, which is why US courts have ruled that while the government can't restrict the content of what you say, they can restrict where and when you say it. 'Where' in the past has included 'somewhere where the target of your protest can't actually notice you'. It seems an internally inconsistent position; you can say whatever you want, but not where we don't want you to say it.
> It seems an internally inconsistent position; you can say whatever you want, but not where we don't want you to say it.
Totally consistent if the assumption is that the constitution is not the foundation of the government power, but a obstacle to be overcome for it to be able to fulfill it.
The short answer is that a locality may impose "reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions." Such a restriction, to be reasonable, must be content neutral, serve a significant government interest, be narrowly tailored to further that interest, and leave open ample alternative fora.
So, for example, if you want to lead a large march down a busy street, you generally can't do that in advance without a permit. The reason for this, I take it, is fairly obvious. If a government wants to restrict your ability to conduct a large protest in, say, a public park, on the other hand, they're going to have a harder time in court explaining why the restriction is reasonable.
Courts review these restrictions under "intermediate scrutiny" which means that, while they don't look as hard as they would if the restriction were content based (for example), they are still supposed to conduct a meaningful and detailed review.
"The right of the people peaceably to assemble" is protected in the Bill of Rights (1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). The letter writer seems to be referring to the shutting down a public street, which indeed could subject to a permit by a local government (for a protest or a parade).
You've misquoted the amendment. It is "the right to peaceably assemble." The Constitution was written before the invention of grammar nazis, and before Victorian snobs decided you couldn't split an infinitive verb.
No, your parent comment has in fact literally quoted the amendment. For example, on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_S... you will find the full text as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Please be more careful before posting in the future.
(Article the first has never been ratified. Article the second was ratified in 1992. Articles three through twelve were ratified as the first ten amendments in 1791.)
Please be more careful before posting in the future.
Interestingly, to me at least, I read the quote, and remembered the text with a split infinitive. To check that I was right, I googled the text of the amendment, which google helpfully displayed above the search results. Seeing that I was right, I copied and pasted the text from google into the comment box here. What I did not do was read the whole text that google provided, only the relevant clause. If I had read the whole thing I would have realized it was a paraphrase rather than the actual text. I offer my humblest and deepest possible apologies to the OP, and to you.
However, I probably won't be much more careful when posting in the future. I try to keep my statements of fact on HN accurate by checking at least some source. In the end that's as far as I'm going to go.
The excuse I heard was that
an infinitive in English is two
words but corresponds to a single
word in Latin, and, of course, as
all good Latin experts know, English
grammar should be as much like Latin
as possible! So, since can't split
a single word infinitive in Latin,
we shouldn't in English! So,
"to be" is okay but "to not be" would
be bad. "To an infinitive split" would
be awful! So, string me up if I were
to badly split an infinitive!
Sometimes it just sounds better. Why it does is an interesting question for linguists.
"To boldly go where no man has gone before"
"We are determined to completely and utterly eradicate the disease."
"She wants to gradually get rid of her teddy bears."
"Writers should learn to not split infinitives."
It's also not always possible to eliminate the split infinitive, or the infinitive, without changing the direct or implied meaning of the sentence. "She wants to get rid of her teddy bears gradually" works fairly well.
"Boldly going where no man has gone before" is close, but doesn't capture the same challenge, summons, call to action as the original. Nor does it sound as pleasing.
Problem is, without thinking about
the likely meaning, at first glance
it's not clear what 'gradually' modifies,
that is, it may modify 'wants', that
is, her wanting is only gradual and
not yet full; such are some of the
possibilities of subtlety of meaning
with the English
language!
"freedom to protest is important in and of itself"
That is your opinion, and while I agree with it, police exist to enforce laws (with discretion), not to promote or otherwise engage in discussions regarding civil liberties.
I think he did an excellent job making his points without taking sides.
There are no boundaries to our "rights". These are not affordances, nor privileges provided by the state. These are all our "inalienable rights" as a free people.
We the People further reserve the right to struggle for life, freedom, and happiness should any subset of the people get funny ideas that they are 'above the law'.
If you review many of the Supreme Court of the US judgements about the first amendment you will notice that there are indeed boundaries to individual rights; most notably when these rights infringe on others' rights.
The legitimacy of the state in United States of America is contingent on the primacy of the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence. This declaration was indeed an act of "rebellion" against the "laws" of the Crown of England.
The essence of that document is a rejection of any notion of stratified rights and obligations, and the uniformity of the application of the law.
The OP is about the POLICE. It does not appear that the POLICE are subject to the same laws as the rest of us, Citizen.
The freedom of speech does not include the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Or the right to yell "Let's burn the house" at a KKK rally in front of a man's house in the south. There are boundaries to all rights. Otherwise we would never know when the rights of one person must supersede the rights of another.
I mean what about the simple text of the Sixth Amendment: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
The $20 Dollar limit is complete arbitrary and doesn't even make sense in today's era. Really this is an artificial boundary. Rules set in place by men to govern men. Rights with boundaries.
Open your self to challenge your own thoughts and opinions. These are not areas of black and white but of shades of Red, White, and Blue so complex that good, thoughtful men can and will come to reasonable but differing conclusions.
I propose you test this claim by one of the methods the grandparent suggested. The protest-by-occupying-a-random-person's-house idea seems like a good one to pick.
My take is that laws exist to protect our rights. Police exist to protect those rights by enforcing the laws that protect those rights. There for the police exist to protect our rights, including the right to protest. There is no discussion for the police to engage in, they just should do their job. If the police are not protecting protest, they are failing at a very basic level and, IMHO, cant claim to be called "police".
I always thought we asked two simple things from the police as they carry out their duties. Professionalism, which as you said is the ability to withstand provocation to anger without acting violently. And courage, which is the ability to endure fear also without acting violently.
I think they are still doing a pretty good job on the whole as far as the former goes. Its the latter I find them slipping on as of late.
"The role of the police is to preserve a range of disorder that is enshrined in law, and thereby prevent violence against and stagnation of persons, properties, and cultures," would, I venture, be a nearer approximation of the truth.
The right to peaceably assemble shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to go about their business. The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric.
Conversely, the right for citizens to go about their business shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to peaceably assemble. Protesting, marching, and occasionally inconveniencing other people is an integral part of a free society.
I'm not fond of the protesters' decision to block freeways (I'm thinking specifically of the incident in southern California, I wasn't aware of one in Tennessee). I wouldn't do that, and I would discourage other people from doing that.
I might support making the obstruction of major highways into a ticketable offense and gently but firmly removing any protesters there. But, there's no way I would qualify that as "terrorism", and anybody that argued that it was would move me further towards supporting protests on highways.
The social pendulum in the U.S. has swung far too far towards an authoritarian police state. Let's not push it farther by declaring acts of peaceful protest to be "terrorism", no matter how inconvenient they are.
The "major highways" in my city are routinely shut down for half a day or more for any and all of the following:
- the President is in town, and he and the 200+ vehicles in his entourage want to go from point A to point B
- a funeral for any firefighter or policeman is being held, and the funeral party wants to travel from the cathedral to the cemetery
- a museum wants to move an artwork (a big hunk of stone) from a quarry to their facility, or a space shuttle orbiter from the airport to their facility (I think the orbiter only shut down city streets, not freeways)
- a hockey team won their league championship, and the company that owns the team wants to hold a celebratory parade (one of our basketball teams used to do the same, back when they used to win championships)
- the police department want to hold a staged "counter terrorism" exercise (complete with stunt coordinator, director, and a giant video screen scrolling the credits for the audience of VIPs) in the center of downtown mid-day on a weekday.
Not to mention that emergency vehicles generally only travel a short distance, and so don't bother with the freeways unless the emergency is actually on the freeway.
These all sound like things a permit was applied for, or at least the action was worked out in advance. Similarly, a protest should be able to do the same. But any of these listed actions, if attempting without clearing it with the controlling interests, would be cause for concern in my opinion.
The difference is that if a resource is known to be unavailable for a time, people can plan accordingly.
I believe the I-35 shutdown in Minneapolis a few weeks back was worked out with the police ahead of time. There were state patrol cars behind them as they marched, filling the lanes but basically just keeping them & traffic apart. All very organized.
It should be just as likely as for a parade. If not, that seems like something that should be taken to the courts. Everyone could benefit from some clarity in the law.
This is fine in theory, but it doesn't demonstrate much understanding of the reality.
Protests are time-critical and often ad hoc. Bureaucracies that don't like something have endless opportunities to raise barriers, delay, and deny for trivial reasons. Lawsuits are expensive and slow, especially when opponents, like governments, already have lawyers on salary.
It's implausible to expect a loose group of protesters to file for permits, fail repeatedly at dealing with bureaucracy, fund a lawsuit, spend months or years pushing for it, win, and then keep going back to the judge until meaningful reform is accomplished. Especially when those protesters are upset because they think the government is fundamentally biased against them.
Your offered approach is entirely reasonable, but entirely likely to bias things strongly in favor of the the status quo.
Then maybe an ad-hoc time-critical gathering shouldn't be on freeways in certain locations (sincere, not trying to beg-the-question)? Gathering in a location that presents a danger to themselves seems like the ideal situation where we need to examine it closely and not make blanket statements as to whether it is okay or not.
I'm not really espousing a particular position, just that we should think critically about this and realize that the act of using a freeway for a parade and for protest aren't always all that similar (but they may be, it really depends).
From the point of view of the 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech and peaceable assembly, I think they should be treated as equivalent. Both are political speech, and the government must not favor pro-status-quo speech (like a 4th of July parade) over anti-status-quo speech (like a protest march).
Indeed, if they're going to favor one, I'd rather it be the anti-status-quo speech. The US is founded on the notion that we are always seeking a more perfect union. The reason the Great Seal [1] has an unfinished pyramid because we should never think we are done.
I don't disagree with this, it's actually a portion of the point I was trying to make. That is, all other things equal, they should be equivalent. It's the "other things" here which may make the results different, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
For example, consider a parade scheduled from 11 AM to 1 PM on Sunday, known well in advance, and an impromptu protest that really gets way at some random point in the afternoon, most people didn't know about, and causes logistical problems for many people. I value and appreciate the need for both, but I also understand and support the police trying to contain and in some cases disperse (peacefully!) the second. Indeed, the anti-establishment bent the protests often have usually benefits from some police presence, IMO. It's a better story and reaches more ears.
There's the rub, though, isn't it? If the protest is against something that isn't in the public interest (cops killing black people indiscriminately without indictment, let's say) when is the public better served? By powers held over them by an authoritarian state, or by the protest against that state?
Everything in the above paragraph is a slight overstatement. But while there's arguably between 0-1 good times to yell "fire" in a theater (it could be argued that panicking doesn't help the situation), protesting actions by authority isn't quite so black and white.
Just as the exercise of free speech can prove annoying or vexing to a bystander that doesn't agree with that speech, so too can other exercises of more controversial rights, without those rights necessarily being a violation of the Constitution - at least the spirit of it.
Yeah, and that's the main reason I'd support making the obstruction of major roads into a very mild ticketable offense -- the slightly lesser other reasons being that some unfortunate people might lose their job as a result of the traffic jam or that the jam increases the chances of a serious accident.
Weighing the needs of the protesters to be heard vs. the financial needs of lower income workers is a big grey area that I'm totally unresolved on, but obstructing emergency vehicles is pretty cut-and-dried (for me).
"Yeah, and that's the main reason I'd support making the obstruction of major roads into a very mild ticketable offense"
In most (maybe all) major cities in the US (and probably most small cities, too), it is in fact a minor ticketable (and thus arrestable) offense. It is so in Nashville, and this police chief opted to not enforce the law in this case to help insure safety and to respect the right of assembly of the protestors. There are court cases that indicate that even gatherings that disrupt things (whether that's traffic or whatever), even without a permit, may still be protected free speech and assembly. It is a delicate balance that our courts are tasked with upholding.
It's worth noting that the people protesting often spend quite a lot of time discussing who will be affected by the protest and whether there will be undue hardships on people least able to cope with those hardships. It is rare that a social justice oriented protest does not consider, and have plans in place, to try to minimize the negative impact on those populations most at risk.
I've been pretty involved in protests and organizing in my city for the past several years, on the issue of police accountability and many others, and an emergency vehicle (fire truck, ambulance) would simply never have trouble getting through a protest, in my experience (and I've seen marches or rallies clear the way for EMTs).
Inconvenience is a thing that happens sometimes. My city shuts down downtown for a month for SXSW. That inconveniences everyone who doesn't want to participate in SXSW, and does so for literally weeks (not minutes like most protests do), so much so that it can take an extra hour to get some places during SXSW, and yet it doesn't raise the ire of people who get angry at the first sign of delay due to a protest.
In short, the needs of lower income workers on buses, trains, etc. is often discussed and factored into protest action plans.
I would assume the police would move aside cars & people to let the siren screaming vehicles get by. And at least in the USA, there's the "breakdown" lane to drive on the side of any major highway afaik. Now, if you want to debate about citizen's right to assemble vs citizen's right to drive in peace, that's another discussion. And in that discussion do note that in USA "Driving is a privilege, not a right".
The protests went further than just shutting down the freeways, at least in my city. Here they blocked a transit tunnel that moves commuters through downtown, forcing the buses to use crowded surface streets and completely disabling the light rail.
I understand your frustration, but is the light rail & public transportation a right or a privilege? We're getting pedantic here though, so I'm not extending this conversation. I'm just glad the police didn't show up with a tank and throw teargas and rubber bullets at them. That's all. Some compassion & respect was shown towards protestors and the only downside the police had to face was a few frustrated commuters, I'm okay with that. Since it's basically impossible to make everyone happy in this kind of situation, I think annoyed commuters is the lesser evil here.
That's fair. It seems police forces across the US have learned to be less confrontational against protestors, and in general this has been a good thing.
I've expressed this in a sub-optimal manner, but I'm concerned about what I see as an erosion in the degree to which we give police officers discretion about how to do their jobs in the name of what amounts to a political ideology. I'm also concerned about what I see as a mentality of fear and distrust against authority (of all types, not just law enforcement), and the tendency to act on this fear rather than trying to ensure that those who have authority have it for the right reasons.
> In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"
I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Shouting fire in a crowded theatre isn't "inflammatory speech" as it's used in Brandenburg (although it may be inflammatory in another sense). So while the case referencing "fire in a crowded theatre" has itself been overturned, that's not the same as saying you can now literally shout fire in a crowded theatre. At the very least, you'd be liable for negligence.
Clarifying further, 'terrorism' means using fear (the 'terror' part) to achieve political goals (the 'ism' part). Peacefully blocking a highway might be civil disobedience, but it's nowhere near terrifying.
To clarify further, I could call my landlord a terrorist because he'll come banging on my door if I don't pay him on time. That induces fear, yet I think we can all agree my landlord is not a terrorist for wanting to collect his rent.
"Terrorism" is a laughably flexible term that could be used to fit just about anything given the right wording.
If you have to resort to calling someone a terrorist in order to get me on your side, you've failed to state why I should agree with you without resorting to FUD.
The protestors are using fear (the fear of being attacked by police) to achieve a political goal (somewhat murky but the general gist seems to be to accelerate the depolicing of cities).
> The social pendulum in the U.S. has swung far too far towards an authoritarian police state.
My view is it's gone the opposite direction. We've neutered our police forces such that they can't even protect the rights of citizens to go about their business without being impeded by anti-authoritarian protestors, and we've accepted that as a fact of life. If this country didn't have the inertia of having the world's reserve currency and the largest industrial capacity for a crucial ~50-60 year period, nobody would invest in us given our social unrest.
> The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric.
Yeah, that and the dead children, schoolteachers with their legs blown off, orphans left behind after their parents were shredded or burned to death, etc that results from actual terrorism. That's basically the only difference.
"The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric."
Are you serious? You see no difference between beheading someone and sending out a video of it, and peacefully stopping traffic for a few minutes, other than the way they talk about it? Flying airplanes into buildings, and disrupting a train schedule for a little while by peacefully locking arms, are the same thing to you? Suicide bombers, and a (simulated, and peaceful) "die-in" in a shopping mall, those are morally no different?
That's such an unreasonable, and inflammatory, position to take that I'm genuinely not even sure how to communicate with you.
Freedom isn't the ability "to do" something or anything, it is simply the absence of coercion. Blocking someone's ability to navigate on public property is coercion, it is not a right, it certainly is not freedom.
We are not more free if people can block your path because they're unhappy...which is what some here are arguing.
Blocking someone's ability to navigate on public property is coercion, it is not a right
What magic gives you as an individual more right to a given parcel of public property than any other individual (or collection thereof)? You want to use the road. They want to use the road. Seems to me like a classic first-come-first-served sort of freedom.
If you want them to stop using the public property they're on so that you can use it, you'll be appealing to authorities to coerce them off it. That doesn't sound like freedom either.
>You want to use the road. They want to use the road.
No, I want to use the road, they want to block the road.
It's not magic. As a society we have come together, formed a government, and agreed upon how land should be used. The majority agreed we should tax everyone (essentially) and build roads and sidewalks as a means of navigation. There is even a permitting process to use roads for other purposes, such as parades, legal protests, and road races.
Blocking the road isn't using it, nor is it legal, nor is it relevant to their cause.
The problem I have is that you're making arguments of semantics ('coercion'? Really?). So I'm responding with arguments of semantics.
So, what happens to your argument when a majority of people want the protest? Anyone can claim the silent majority for themselves.
What happens when the person approving the permits refuses to give it out because they don't feel like it? Do you wait the months it takes to take the government to court? What if you have no money? Is everyone just supposed to wait around until the judge supplies a court order?
Ultimately the issue is this: bad shit happens from time to time, and people feel the need to make themselves heard. In a healthy society, they should be allowed to do so. If that sort of action carries on impeding everyone else for a while, then sure, then it's time to say it's gone on too long. But the idea that you should never even be slightly inconvenienced because of someone else's issues is somewhat... inhuman.
I say this as someone whose transport home is a tram that goes right down my city's favoured protest route (it leads to the parliament house). Whenever there's a protest, permitted or not, my ride home gets severely delayed or I have to find alternate transport ($$ taxi). But you know what, that's part of life. Shit happens. And ultimately, most people are protesting in some form or another for an increase in civil liberties, and to be frank, most of the "screw those people for getting in the way" brigade are either ambivalent or oppose the broadening of civil liberties.
I feel like there's something terribly wrong with your viewpoint.
If you want to protest, go stand in front of our government houses, go stand in front of the people whose jobs affect our lives.
As it is, some people like to believe that standing on a highway will change something. What does it accomplish? Do highway blockages win people over or just alienate more people who should be on the side of the protest? I'm sure in some cases, people get annoyed enough that they finally give in to whatever is demanded (see France).
Occupy Wall Street happened in a park, and on already highly congested streets. People were there for so long that it acually made the news, and it stayed on the news for weeks. Just imagine what the protestors could have accomplished if they had a single unifying goal or message!
It seems the only purpose for blocking automobiles is to annoy people until they can't take it anymore. Instead of effecting real change.
> All you have here is an argument of semantics. Blocking and using are not mutual exclusive categories of human behavior.
I feel like you missed the point. For obvious reasons I'm not allowed to park my car in the middle of the freeway, and that is arguably a Good Thing. Protesters blocking the freeway aren't much different then that. We built roads with the intention of people using them to get from place to place, people seeking to impede other peoples use of roads to accomplish that goal are obviously going against the main intention of the road.
What they're doing is comparable to blocking the doors to a library instead of simply standing outside and protesting, it's just they would get much less sympathy if it was a library. Both still prevent people from using public property for it's intended use by the public.
I'm not missing the point, I just think there are better ways to make it. The road is being used to protest. Driving on a road also blocks other cars from driving on it at the same time.
The objection is not really that the road is being blocked, but that some group of people care more about their protest than they do about other people's convenience, and that just cannot stand. People should be only allowed to protest if people who wouldn't protest aren't bothered by it.
I don't think this has anything to do with the difference between blocking or using, or 'intended use' -- whatever that philosophical quandary is supposed to mean. This is about efficiency and cost. At what cost should a protest be illegal? "At the inconvenience of a small public" is what I'm hearing.
Addendum: "Intended use" is not a data point. It is not something that an intelligent person can use to make decisions. "Actual use", yes. Things in really are actually used. They are never "intendedly used," and talking about it as such is a moratorium on creativity. Those protesters certainly intended to use the road as a platform for protesting. Are they not voting citizens of their country who also helped pay for those roads? Intent is the least important thing in the world.
> Driving on a road also blocks other cars from driving on it at the same time.
Except it doesn't, because cars can share the road as long as all the cars keep moving. Of course, if you add too many cars people start to slow down, but that's an issue of the road being to small. This honestly isn't really much of a debatable point because there are lots of freeways that have minimum speed limits, meaning that if a car is blocking the road by going to slow (or stopped), it's breaking the speed limit and thus breaking the law, only for the reason of going to slow. Thus, it is illegal to block the road in such a way. The only times that it would be legal is if it you applied for a permit (Which they didn't do here).
Again, we come back to the library example. Is it legal for people to stand and block others from entering a library? Yes they're legally allowed to stand in-front of the library doors, but at what point does it infringe on the rights of others to use the library and become illegal?
The entire thing reminds me of this quote:
> "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
> Driving on a road also blocks other cars from driving on it at the same time.
Uh, no. You still seem to be missing the point.
Roads are designed for cars to be moving, and in some cases, foot traffic is explicitly prohibited except under specific circumstances (like highways). People are legitimately in danger if you have a posted speed limit of 60MPH or 100KPH, and you have a car simply stopped in the road. Or in this case, a crowd of people on foot.
>Blocking and using are not mutual exclusive categories of human behavior.
Huh? I suppose one could say, bathing, singing, peeing, blocking, using, and jazz hands are not mutually exclusive categories of human behavior.
All these people need is a tub full of water in the middle of the highway and they can do all those things at the very same time. So then, what the fuck is your point?
Because my point is that jazz hands are for Broadway, bathing is for your tub, peeing is for your toilet, and driving is for the road. Why would you argue with that?
The "to do" part is the active preservation of and action against coercion. If the denial of a right is present, only action against that threat is likely to remove it.
Further, a freedom is likely to disappear without continued active exercise - which makes that freedom an action, contrary to your argument.
The idea that freedom is absent action or protection is absurd. Using the term "so called intellectuals" makes you sound obtuse.
I should think that the difference between blocking traffic for a short period of time and terrorism is death and suffering. I would say the only similarity between the two is that they both seek to advance political agendas. This is like saying the only difference between a filibuster and terrorism is rhetoric.
so rights only exist until it becomes slightly inconvenient to people? There's a pretty easy slippery slope argument there. Are train drivers allowed to strike? Can the NYT publish articles revealing how terribly a company is run?
Protesters are encouraged to coordinate with city officials so that people won't be "too inconvenienced", but last I checked it isn't a constitutional requirement.
The fact that being late one day can get you fired speaks to the state of labor rights in the US.
Think of all of the things that could make you late. Protests, sure, but a broken down car, a car accident (yours or somebody else). Hell, if the President comes around they shut down a bunch of lanes of traffic.
So, to use the examples you're replying to here, do you also believed that organized labor doesn't have the right to strike if it might make you late to work, and that the NYT isn't allowed to run an article outing you as a major criminal if that might cause you to be terminateD?
I'm sorry, but whether or not you're inconvenienced is of absolutely no consequence and should have no bearing whatsoever on the right of the people to protest.
If a bit of a delay on the roads is all you've got to complain about, you've got it pretty damn good.
This isn't about blocking roads or stopping transit. Its about being heard. Unfortunately it takes more than a sternly worded letter to voice their frustration and outrage, and here you are trying to take one of their few remaining outlets away from them.
Upvoted, but your comment sounds a bit self centered.
"Anybody who enjoys social freedom because others have toiled, and some are still toiling, for it should give up his freedom when the state needs it."
You enjoy many benefits because the "citizens" you speak of contribute to the state and make it so you live there happily and safely. Now when these people, together as citizens, feel like their "social contract" is being abused, they have a right, through the government, to put an immediate and sharp hold on your freedom to have the matter resolved.
Now in this case, if the police did not act, you can consider it as an approval. If you disagree with this method, you also have the right to protest in the same manner.
Edit: Also a protest is a nuisance, terrorism is an actual threat to your freedom.
"It is only when we go outside that comfort zone, and subject ourselves to the discomfort of considering thoughts we don't agree with, that we can make an informed judgment on any matter. We can still disagree and maintain our opinions, but we can now do so knowing that the issue has been given consideration from all four sides. Or, if we truly give fair consideration to all points of view, we may need to swallow our pride and amend our original thoughts."
I've heard this sentiment before, but never so well written.
One of my final professors in college taught us to ensure that when looking at a position to examine both sides of every side, and if we want to be very thorough, to look at both sides of both sides of either side.
It's a lesson that has stuck well and has helped me maintain perspective in a wide variety of situations.
The old adage (I believe from the ancient Asian philosophies of Taoism and Zen) "Think thrice before you speak, and then only speak if you have thrice concluded it is worth hearing" is another way to keep yourself in check at times. How many times have I wanted to speak and realized some folly in my thought process!
Here is another gem "It is somewhat perplexing when children are injected into the conversation as an attempt to bolster a position or as an attempt to thwart the position of another." I was hesitant to read this at first as it had nothing to do with programming. However, I am glad I did. I would recommend the HN community to read both the mail and the response. The response was well thought out, organized and calls out a few biases we carry around.
Can you provide some context as to why you think this picture is a good example of using children as rhetoric instead of being a reasonable inclusion?
For example if it was a bill to increase funding to elementary schools having the kids there for the photo-op seems fair.
From the filename this seems to be on a gun bill, but I don't have enough information to understand your point (unless it's simply "Obama's done it", which is true of just about every politician).
Yes, it was on a gun bill; the children are apparently kids who wrote the President letters regarding gun violence and school safety after the Sandy Hook school shootings.
Be sure to read the whole post, as well as the email chain below it.
This was part of a complaint email sent to him:
>>I wanted to send you this email to express my frustration and outrage at how the situation of these protesters is being handled in Nashville. The first night protesters marched here after the incidents in Ferguson they never should have been allowed to shut down the interstate. Instead of at least threatening to arrest them, they were served coffee and hot chocolate.
This is how you deal with protests. Good job Nashville police; much respect. My own frustration lies with whoever sent this complaint.
Any time the police are forced to go arresting people for protesting they've failed a little bit. This is especially true when the protests are about police.
Granted there are times when they are left with no choice, but if there is a strong relationship established between the protesters and the police, such that the protesters believe that the police understand their concerns, how much less likely does this become?
One could also argue that there was an earlier failure(s) of the system if people reach the point of having to protest to feel like they're being heard. So the protestors already see the police as yet another force trying to silence them which definitely strains that relationship. I think the issue here is that the protestors don't want to talk to police; they want to talk to the political/legal/social people in power to listen to their complaints. So the police are seen like a 3rd-party summoned by the people in power to stop the protestors and the situation is worse when the protests are about the police itself.
If the police were to start mass-arresting protesters, then that coupled with this situation could actually significantly reduce safety. Mobs are organic, and a single misunderstanding could easily lead to chaos.
> The police are merely a representative of a government formed by the people for the people—for all people
Peelian Principles [1] explicitly say that the police force is not representing the government, as that's the job of the military. Firstly, the police force are citizens in uniform and part of the local community. The police are explicitly in place so the military can stay out of the community.
Militarised police forces around the world would do well to keep in mind that they are making themselves redundant, since if the police are indistinguishable from the military, they might as well be done away with and replaced by the military.
The word government is not the best choice, it should probably be state, not at last because governments come and go while the state stays. But in essence the statement is correct - policy and military enforce the laws on behalf of the citizens, the police to the inside of the state, the military to the outside.
I respectfully disagree with the military=outside, police=inside distinction. For example, nations use the military internally in times of emergency, with the imposition of martial law. Similarly, police delegations get sent overseas on UN missions.
In my mind, the distinction is consent and source of authority. The military works by imposing rule, the definition of rule coming from a higher level. The police work by enforcing behaviour, as defined by the community they are policing.
Granted that the definition of community is subjective. My argument is the definition of "community" should be the smallest one possible that allows a positive outcome in the current situation. For example in a noise complaint, the police could appeal to a sense of right, based on the expectations of people in the street. The law wouldn't even come into it, as that is something from "outside". Only if that's unsuccessful would the police have to broaden the definition of community to include statutes and external influences.
----
Edit: I'd also add that ultimately, the military is not bound by the law. Their final brief is "get the job done" and they will answer for war crimes if they stuff up.
It is valuable to make a distinction between state and government, but I can't agree with how you are classifying military and police. The military exists to defend the existence of a state. Police cannot perform this role in a democracy, because a democracy _should_ be able to destroy itself peacefully.
Police exist to promote social order and peace, and should have no allegiance to the state, but to the people. Conversely, the military must be obedient to the state in order to prevent internal fracture, as that would weaken the military as a combat force. The police cannot work in the same way: they are fractured simply by the fact that they have no strong central command structure. They serve their communities.
Police in the United States are not philosophically derived from the Peelian Principles. Police are civilians and not military, but they are government agents of the state you live in, with powers above those of citizens.
When did the plural for "person" become "persons" instead of "people"? Is this just some weird Americanism, or is there a specific difference in police jargon?
It's a legal (or pseudo-legal) tic, based on a formal grammatical rule that "people" refers to a large mass (such as the "people of the United States"), and "persons" refers to a finite body of, er, people.
Technically, the plural of "person" is "persons," not "people," as the two terms share distinct Latin roots: persona vs. populus, the former referring to a physical person, and the latter to a sociocultural grouping (e.g., SPQR -- Senatus Populusque Romanus, "the Senate and People of Rome"). But we are more likely these days to use "people" as the proper plural of "person," and generally only encounter "persons" in more formal contexts.
You seem to be correct in that law enforcement uses 'persons' over 'people' more often. [1] I'm not entirely sure where the distinction comes from, but language can be such a funny thing.
Strange how I'd never noticed "missing persons" as being an odd construct before. I guess I'd just heard it so often I wasn't really aware of how the phrase was constructed.
I always took it to mean the same category of distinction made in biological categories. That is, 'people' means a simple plural person, where "persons" means a plural of person categories.
Like 'fish' means multiple fish, but 'fishes' means multiple species of fish.
Then saying 'these persons' would essentially mean 'these groups of different kinds of people.' (But that could also just be implicit regardless of your word choice.)
But... you can also use 'person' to mean the body of a person, so that 'persons' could mean multiple bodies. "They carried the weapons on their persons," for instance. Akin to how 'mice' is the plural of the animal, but 'mouses' is the plural of the computer peripheral.
His response email is exceptional:
"As imperfect humans, we have a tendency to limit our association with other persons to those persons who are most like us. Unfortunately, there is even more of a human tendency to stay within our comfort zone by further narrowing those associations to those persons who share our thoughts and opinions. By doing this we can avoid giving consideration to thoughts and ideas different than our own. This would make us uncomfortable. By considering only the thoughts and ideas we are in agreement with, we stay in our comfort zone. Our own biases get reinforced and reflected back at us leaving no room for any opinion but our own. By doing this, we often convince ourselves that the majority of the world shares opinion and that anyone with another opinion is, obviously, wrong.
It is only when we go outside that comfort zone, and subject ourselves to the discomfort of considering thoughts we don't agree with, that we can make an informed judgment on any matter. We can still disagree and maintain our opinions, but we can now do so knowing that the issue has been given consideration from all four sides. Or, if we truly give fair consideration to all points of view, we may need to swallow our pride and amend our original thoughts."
I'm going to assume that if it was representative of the 5%, it was of the 1% of that 5% who chose to position their thoughts in an eloquent and respectful manner.
His reply is also an example of a positive, thoughtful, and respectful response to another's position. The letter was fruitful in that gave him much to espouse upon in his reply.
In this way, it may just have been the perfect example for his community outreach. And I'd say it was an excellent choice.
I think his point is that the letters are coming from the 5%, where there's a silent majority. There's a silent majority that is probably frustrated by protests on the interstate, but arresting people for the "die ins"? I think most people agree that those protests are well within the freedom of assembly.
Not many people write in to feel they are moderately satisfied with the way things are going, I would think.
"In the year 2013, our officers made over four hundred thousand vehicle stops, mostly for traffic violations. A citation was issued in only about one in six of those stops. Five of the six received warnings. This is the police exercising discretion for minor violations of the law. Few, if any, persons would argue that the police should have no discretion."
Huh. Really? Warnings five out of six times? Is that pretty common?
Well, it's either an indication that the cops are engaging in aggressive profiling, or are remarkably free of pressure to write tickets. Surprisingly, the answer seems to be the latter -- Chief Anderson is an attorney who was legal counsel to the department's SWAT unit as well as a longtime Nashville cop, who appears to put great faith in building community-police relationships, and whose department has independently adopted stringent anti-profiling rules.
Anderson also blew the whistle to Congress a few months ago on an attempt by Secret Service agents to mislead a suspect into believing they had a warrant. If the ACLU designed a supercop, it'd be this guy. Nashville -- who knew?
Only one of the six times I've been pulled over have I been given a citation. In fact, only one out of 20 times that I speed near the police do I even get pulled over.
This is an anecdotal and rough statistic, but in my experience the police are extremely lenient with traffic stops.
This was killed by user flags, but we unkilled it. It's surprisingly thoughtful and unusual enough to make it intellectually interesting and therefore on topic for this site.
Thanks, I really thought so. I found his statements about the personal echochamber effect to be particularly insightful.
Although police giving coffee and hot chocolate to protestors reads like a light-hearted PR move, it raises interesting questions about why police and protestors are by default at odds, when they often have overlapping concerns and agendas.
The only times I can think of police being involved in protests are because they (at least appear) to be non-neutral.
When the police are the target of the protest, it's pretty easy for them to appear to be on one side of the issue. If the people of Ferguson think the police don't protect them it shouldn't be surprising that the protestors don't want to obey them.
The only other incident that comes to mind is the WTO protests in Seattle years ago. I remember the people felt like the police were being used to squash legitimate protests and suppress speech.
But I know other protests happen. The various fast food woke protests earlier this year would be an example. Most of the time the police are out doing stuff like stopping really rowdy people from escalating things and managing traffic. I'd imagine most of these kind of protests (large marches, etc.) are scheduled but even when they weren't the police weren't seen as intruding because they were perceived to be neutral.
That neutrality makes a big difference. With it the police are there to help/protect the protestors and keep things safe. Without it the police can start to feel like a military force putting down rebellion. And a crowd is going to react very differently to those two things.
my thoughts exactly: policemen and -women are people and citizens too (with kids that probably wont grow to be police themselves), and citizens have an interest in upholding the law. it's NOT an us vs. them situation.
Thanks. This was a very worthwhile read, both in terms of demonstrating that the concept of 'public service' still has its champions and as an example of how to thoughtfully express disagreement.
It's pretty clear the chief intended on showing the writer how well-adjusted he wasn't, but to do so he has to completely ignore the fact that protesters were not just being heard, but shutting down major highways and disrupting people's efforts to enter the mall, this after many protesters doing similar things elsewhere had been violent and criminal. Sure, if you ignore that then yeah, the writer is a total dope.
> It's pretty clear the chief intended on showing the writer how well-adjusted he wasn't
I'm guessing the second 'he' refers to the letter writer and not the chief. It's a little unclear from the sentence.
This seemed like a very well written and thoughtful rebuttal to some of the concerns in the letter. I didn't get a tone that it was showing the letter's author they weren't 'well adjusted'.
> [..] this after many protesters doing similar things elsewhere had been violent and criminal.
If the protesters in Tennessee weren't being violent/criminal, why compare them to the protests in some other cities? It was mentioned that the highways were kept open after the first night.
Sounds like the whole thing went pretty peacefully. If letting the protestors close an onramp or two the first day was the price for avoiding a riot or revolt that may have been an excellent decision.
Your first assumption is correct, the chief was showing the letter writer that the letter writer wasn't well adjusted, but it looks like you figured that out.
> why compare them to the protests in some other cities?
You'd have to be intellectually dishonest to compare one to the other and not worry that they were the same. They were protesting the same thing and in a similar manner. While it hadn't escalated to the point of other protests, all other indications were there with no way of determining the stopping point of escalation.
> If letting the protestors close an onramp or two the first day was the price for avoiding a riot or revolt that may have been an excellent decision.
Perhaps that may be true from the police officer's point of view but it doesn't offer any validation to citizens safety concerns. When we look at the incident from a standpoint of it being passed us, then it is only convenient to say that the police officers made the correct decision in allowing illegal acts, but it isn't necessarily true.
The Problem with the chief's reply is that it ignores the citizens VALID safety concerns and then makes assumptions concerning the citizen's adjustment to society. If there had been no safety concerns, then the chief might have been justified in his assumption, but when the police force allows people to do large scale illegal acts that directly affect the lives of the people around them, then you can hardly say that concerns for safety aren't valid.
So whether the citizen's concerns for safety are valid or not is the point that the article relies upon to justify the chief's response. I submit that the citizen's concerns for safety were valid, whether or not I would have felt the same (you have to "step out of your comfort zone" and try to avoid biases to understand that), and therefore the chief's reply was assuming and biased.
When confronted by an unexpected powder keg situation, the best answer is often to try to defuse it gently while putting in place contingencies to prevent recurrence. Throwing a lit match (or the riot squad) has not worked out so well for Ferguson...
That doesn't invalidate the citizen's concerns for safety though, which is what the chief had to do in order to then make assumptions about the writer's lack of aptitude for societal understanding. People were doing illegal acts in mass that directly affected the lives of the people around them with no immediate repercussion. It would have made more sense for the chief to apologize for the citizen's valid concerns and an inability to enforce the law due to the threat of escalation. The belief that any action on the police force's part to enforce the law would have escalated in violence only further speaks to the validity of the concerns for safety of the writer.
I can say that I am never more proud of our police forces than when I see them maintain their control and treat people with respect in the face of provocation. That ability to say in command of oneself even when provoked is a core part of maturity and something to be lauded. As he said, it's a sign of a professional.
The role of the police is to prevent violence. That's what makes a community safe. It sounds like the letter-writer, on the other hand, is looking for an agent of his or her frustration. Someone to lash out at the protestors because he or she legally can't. A community where the police can attack people with impunity is about as far from safe as one can get. It seems somewhat obvious, but a safe community is one where no one is attacking anyone.